Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the court err in ordering separate jury trials to different panels regarding breach of contract and bad faith?
2. Did Austin Mutual waive its defenses that the benefits claimed by Piatz and Johnson were not reasonable or necessary?
3. Did the court err in excluding evidence of Dr. Fielden's volume of and income from prior independent medical examinations?
4. Is a medical doctor qualified to express opinions about whether chiropractic treatment is necessary?
5. Did the court err in finding and concluding Austin Mutual did not breach the contract as to either Piatz or Johnson? Specifically, were the following findings clearly erroneous: 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 17; 18; and 19.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The findings of fact made by the trial court are not clearly erroneous and result from the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Plaintiffs failed to object to the court order bifurcating the contract issues from the bad faith issues.
Austin Mutual did not waive its right to terminate the payment of no-fault benefits by its payment of benefits prior to termination.
The court did not err in excluding affidavit evidence concerning Dr. Fielden's prior independent medical examinations.
The court did not err in permitting Dr. Fielden to testify about future chiropractic care.